A Great Returning Part 2: Mythos And Ethos

     My first piece on this subject was “a view from a height.” It addressed no particulars. That was by design. The particulars require particular attention.

     As I’ve written before, a religious creed will incorporate both a theology about the supernatural realm and its relation to our temporal reality, and a code of conduct to which believers are to conform. These are usually called the creed’s mythos and its ethos. The links between them are sometimes subtle.

     When militant atheists attack a creed, they nearly always focus on its mythos, for that is where propositions that cannot be proved reside. Very little attention goes to its ethos, for a simple reason: it’s either demonstrably good or demonstrably evil. Note the palmed card as you ponder that last sentence: whence cometh the standard for good and evil? The atheist cannot provide one.

     Theorists have tried to provide a rational basis for good and evil throughout all of recorded history. They have scored some partial successes; note Robert Axelrod’s The Evolution of Cooperation and Douglas Hofstadter’s explorations of “superrationality” in this regard. But the meta-conundrum – i.e., “Why are the natural laws structured to promote good will among men?” – is something they prefer to ignore. In that regard, they face questions quite as stiff as the ones cosmologists have pondered.

     Ultimate questions such as “Why is there a universe at all?” and “Why are its laws what they are?” cannot be answered by strictly rational means. I recall one cosmologist trying to answer the first question with a quip: “Maybe the reason there is something rather than nothing is that nothing is unstable.” He didn’t see the inherent contradiction. (As I had a need to be elsewhere, I forbore to point it out to him.) “Why are the laws of human nature biased toward peace and cooperation?” is the same sort of question.

     Christianity’s answer to the question is simple: God wills it. As the Christian ethos is uniquely simple and benevolent, that implies that God Himself is benevolent toward His creatures. Mythos and ethos interlock harmoniously.

     That’s a good thing: historically, men have been reluctant to accept the ethos without the mythos. We want explanations. When the phenomenon we’re contemplating is as all-encompassing as the Christian ethos, we demand them. We find it emotionally unsatisfying to be told “Just be good for goodness’ sake.” That’s the hill the evangelists of atheism have struggled to climb.

     Considering that no society based on anything but the Christian ethos (or a superset thereof, such as the Judaic ethos) has remained peaceful and prosperous, there’s a lot to ponder there.

     I could go on, but I don’t see a need. Let it suffice to say that as the American social ethos has weakened these past few decades, to the indisputable detriment of the American people and nation, the most reliable route toward re-establishing and reinforcing it is a great returning to the Christian mythos, historically its most effective promulgator. I believe that this is in progress as we speak.

     And yes: I believe that God wills it.

     Whatever your creed: Happy New Year in 2025!